Author
Topic: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I (Read 10868 times)

Would like to enquire whether a 5 year old 400 mm f/2.8 L make I (not II) which is in excellent condition is a good deal at 4000 euro, and what is its performance with a 2x TC III on a 1DX, whether images are still sharp.

Would like to enquire whether a 5 year old 400 mm f/2.8 L make I (not II) which is in excellent condition is a good deal at 4000 euro, and what is its performance with a 2x TC III on a 1DX, whether images are still sharp.

That sounds very cheap to me, the cheapest 300 f/2.8 I've seen secondhand in the UK in the last few months was 3300. I can only compare with my 300 f/3.8 with a 2x extender. I've only used the combination a few times, the IQ is definitely reduced, but there is still some sharpness there. It ultimately depends on usage. For prints it should be fine, but I wouldn't want to try using the images commecially (from my 7D anyway). That said, I have never got around to microadjusting and the 1D X IQ should be better also.

I don't know the IQ between version I and version II, but if you played it right, you could actually buy the 300 v1 and 400 v1 together for about $9k, vs. both newest versions for $20k. Somehow that has to be worth it, if you can afford it. Saving $11k for possibly marginal savings of IQ?

First, I have to ask: is this with or without IS? There've been lots of versions of the 400 f/2.8 over the years, and not all have had IS. That's mostly of interest to know whether or not the price is fair.

That writ, even the oldest ones had phenomenal image quality. Of course, it's evolved from phenomenal to magical over the years, but you're certainly not going to be disappointed nor missing out by going with an older model.

What the latest version primarily brought, aside from the higher price tag, is a significantly reduced weight. You can actually hand-hold the new version, though not for a long time. Not so with any other 400 f/2.8, period (unless you're Arnold Schwarzenegger). While you wouldn't want to get the new version with the thought of hand-holding it, it makes a huge difference when hauling it all over the place.

(It's also even better optically and has better IS, but that's just gilding the lilly. The older versions were as close to perfection in those regards as makes no difference.)

But people have been shooting with lead-baloon 400 f/2.8s for as long as there have been 400 f/2.8s, so it's not like it's something that can't be dealt with. The new version is absolutely worth the extra money, but that value is meaningless unless the money is in the budget to consider it as an option in the first place.

It's the Mark I, with IS. The previous version prior to the Mark II. 5999 vs. 11,400 is a no brainer. I shoot with a monopod, so I don't need to hand-hold it. But thanks for your insight. Always good to see another perspective.

At five years old it's going to have IS. But check first. Just remember that until just a few months ago when the 400 f/2.8 II shipped, the 400 f/2.8 MkI was the holy grail of 400mm glass in the Canon Universe. It's a truly fabulous lens. The major benefit of the MkII is a radical weight loss. The MkI is a substantial 11.83lb / 5,370g vs the MkII at a svelte 8.48lb / 3,850g is a whole lot more manageable. But for the price I'd be jumping on it, subject to being in reasonable condition. If the lens does not work for you, you won't lose a penny re-selling it.

I have The Mark I IS lens and extender III (1.4X and 2X). They work great together.

Note, there was a Mark I and Mark II version of this lens before the IS versions. I assume your talking about the mark I IS lens because you said 5 years old... Also, The "Mark I" is only called that because the mark II is called/labeled a Mark II. The Mark I does not say Mark I on it.

Cool. There were some problems with some lenses, hence the warning. It doesn't mean it WON'T autofocus correctly, it says it MIGHT NOT autofocus correctly. I'm glad that yours works b/c it's a heck of a lot cheaper using an extender than buying the new 600mm lens